Here's a question more Bay Area gym-goers are asking: Where can I work out without ending up as background content in someone's TikTok?

It's a fair question. And it's one that cuts to the heart of something we care about deeply at The Dissent — property rights, individual liberty, and the reasonable expectation that private businesses should set and enforce clear rules.

The rise of gym influencer culture has created a genuine tension. On one hand, people have the right to document their fitness journey. On the other hand, you have every right not to be filmed mid-deadlift by a stranger who thinks their 847 followers need to see every set of cable flyes — with you sweating in the background.

Here's the thing: this isn't actually a government problem. This is a market problem. And the market should solve it.

Gyms are private property. They can set whatever recording policies they want. Some facilities across the South Bay and Peninsula have already implemented strict no-recording policies, and members are actively seeking them out. That's the free market doing exactly what it's supposed to do — responding to consumer demand.

The gyms that figure this out first will win. Younger members especially are increasingly privacy-conscious (ironic for the generation that grew up on social media, but here we are). A clear, enforced no-recording policy is a competitive advantage, not a restriction.

What we don't need is some San Francisco supervisor drafting an ordinance about gym recordings. We don't need a city commission. We don't need a task force studying the "impacts of fitness content creation on marginalized communities."

We need gym owners to recognize a business opportunity: people will pay a premium for a workout space where they won't end up as involuntary extras in someone's content. Post a sign. Enforce the rule. Charge accordingly.

Privacy isn't just a government issue. It's a value that private businesses can champion — and profit from. That's not a bug in capitalism. That's a feature.